Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 465 (KAR)

AKKASALI ASHOK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2000-07-10

B.PADMARAJ, S.R.BANNURMATH

body2000
B. PADMARAJ, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and carefully perused the case records in detail with their assistance. ( 2 ) THE sole accused is the appellant. The deceased Smt. Sunanda, aged about 25 years, was the wife of the accused. P. W. 10 is the brother of the deceased. The deceased Smt. Sunanda had another brother by name Ravindra, who was working in Gubbi Veeranna Theatre. The accused was also working for some time in the said theatre. While they were so working together, it is stated that both Ravindra and the accused became friends and in that connection the accused used to visit their house, and during which time, the accused developed friendship or intimacy with the deceased Sunanda, which ultimately resulted in their marriage. The deceased belonged to a superior caste while the accused belonged to an inferior caste and on account of that, it is stated that there used to be some altercation between the accused and the deceased. The deceased Smt. Sunanda gave birth to a child in the year 1985 and subsequently a second child was also born, but it did not survive. It is stated that the differences between the accused and the deceased became severe after the death of their second child. The accused used to harass the deceased for money and he was also suspecting the fidelity of his wife. Infact it is stated that the deceased Smt. Sunanda had complained about this to her brother P. W. 10 when she had been to his house and also during the visits of her brother P. W. 10 to her house. While this was so, it is the case of the prosecution that on 18-5-1990 at about 8 or 8-30 a. m. in the morning when both P. Ws. 3 and 4, who were shepherds by profession, were grazing their sheep near about the land of one Chandrappa P. W. 7, within the limits of Navali village, they saw the accused going along with his wife and child towards Veerabhadreshwara Temple. It is stated that the land of P. W. 7 Chandrappa was situated on the way to Veerabhadreshwara Temple. They further found that the accused and the deceased were quarreling with each other, orally. Both P. Ws. It is stated that the land of P. W. 7 Chandrappa was situated on the way to Veerabhadreshwara Temple. They further found that the accused and the deceased were quarreling with each other, orally. Both P. Ws. 3 and 4 saw them going towards a small hillock and thereafter they found that the accused alone returned back along with the child. Obviously they grew suspicious when they did not see the deceased lady along with the accused and hence out of curiosity, they asked the accused as to what happened to the lady, who had accompanied him. Then they were told by the accused that he had killed her. On being so told by the accused, it is stated that they both went to the spot which was situated in the land of Chandrappa P. W. 7 and they saw the dead body of the deceased lying behind a bush in the land. They further found that the deceased lady had been strangulated by means of a string. Then P. W. 3 detained the accused and sent his companion P. W. 4 to go and secure the presence of some of the villagers. It appears that at that relevant point of time, except P. Ws. 3 and 4, the accused, the deceased and their child, no other person was found within the near vicinity. After some time P. W. 4 secured the presence of P. W. 6 and others to the spot. P. W. 6 was informed about this incident while he was present near a temple, talking with some other person. P. W. 6 took along with him the persons namely Veerappa, Dyamappa and others and came to the land of Chandrappa P. W. 7. There, they saw the dead body of the deceased lady lying behind a bush and she was found to have been strangulated by means of a string. P. W. 6 also found that the accused was being detained by Bheemappa P. W. 3. The child of the accused was also found along with him. Then they took the accused along with them to the Grama Devatha Temple and detained him there till the arrival of the police. The accused had also told before them that since his wife deceased Smt. Sunanda had some illicit affairs with some other person, he had killed her. The child of the accused was also found along with him. Then they took the accused along with them to the Grama Devatha Temple and detained him there till the arrival of the police. The accused had also told before them that since his wife deceased Smt. Sunanda had some illicit affairs with some other person, he had killed her. They they sent intimation to the Dalapathi through one Chandrappa P. W. 5. P. W. 2 is the Dalapathi of Navali village. On that day while he was at Hadagali village at about 9-15 a. m. or so, P. W. 5 Chandrappa came and informed to him about the murder having taken place by the side of a road leading to Veerabhadreshwara Temple of Singatanur Village. On being so informed by P. W. 5, he immediately went to the spot along with a few villagers and saw the dead body of the deceased lying by the side of the road with a mark of violence of a string around the neck of the deceased. The string that was used as a ligature material to strangulate the deceased was also found around the neck of the deceased. He then came to know that the accused had been detained by the villagers in front of Grama Devatha Temple. Accordingly P. W. 2 came there and enquired with the accused. He was told by the accused that he has committed the murder of his wife. Thereafter P. W. 2 went and lodged a complaint with the P. S. I. , P. W. 19 at the police station which is as per Ex. P. 2. on the basis of which, the P. S. I. , P. W. 19 registered the case and took up the investigation. He held inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased and also taken the accused to his custody from the place where he was detained by the villagers. He also recorded the statements of P. Ws. 2 to 5 during the inquest proceedings. He further conducted a personal search of the accused and had visited the lodge where the accused had stayed along with his wife and child on the previous night. P. W. 8 was working as a Manager of Vijaya Lodge at Huvina Hadagali. The accused had visited the said lodge and secured a room from P. W. 8 for his stay during the night. P. W. 8 was working as a Manager of Vijaya Lodge at Huvina Hadagali. The accused had visited the said lodge and secured a room from P. W. 8 for his stay during the night. Accordingly a room had been allotted in the said lodge to the accused and an entry in that regard was made in the concerned register Ex. P. 4 and the relevant entry is found at Ex. P. 4a. The accused had visited the lodge along with his wife and child at about 7-30 p. m. on 17-5-1990 and he was allotted room No. 3 in the said lodge. On the next day morning, the accused vacated the said room at about 6 a. m. in the morning and an entry to that effect had also been made in the register as per Ex. P. 4b. P. W. 9 was running a hotel at Hadagali which was situated at the ground floor of the said lodge. On that night, the accused had visited along with his wife and child to the hotel of P. W. 9 and took their meals in the said hotel. The room that was allotted to the accused was situated on the same floor where the counter of P. W. 8 was situated and the distance between that room and the counter was hardly about 30 feet. The accused had visited the said hotel of P. W. 9 along with his wife and child to take their meals around 9 or 9-30 p. m. in the night, and after taking their food, they returned back to their room in the lodge and slept there during night. The accused vacated the room in the morning of 18-5-1990 at about 6 a. m. and he was seen going along with his wife and child by P. Ws. 3 and 4 at about 8-30 a. m. on that day. Thereafter the incident in question had occurred and the accused, on being confronted by P. Ws. 3 and 4, admitted his guilt before them. It is pertinent to note that the accused had been detained by P. W. 3 near about the place of incident and had sent P. W. 4 to fetch some of the villagers to the spot. P. W. 1 is an engineer who has prepared the sketch of the scene of incident as per Ex. P. 1. It is pertinent to note that the accused had been detained by P. W. 3 near about the place of incident and had sent P. W. 4 to fetch some of the villagers to the spot. P. W. 1 is an engineer who has prepared the sketch of the scene of incident as per Ex. P. 1. According to P. W. 1, the scene of incident as shown to him at the spot was situated nearby Navali village on the bank of Thungabhadra river. This has not been disputed by the defence. P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are the persons, before whom the accused is stated to have made extra judicial confession. P. W. 5 was working as a Bill Collector at Navali village. On that relevant day at about 9 a. m. in the morning while P. W. 5 was standing near a temple talking with P. W. 6, P. W. 4 came there and told them that one person had murdered his wife in the land of Chandrappa which is situated on the way leading to Veerabhadreshwar Temple of Singatanur village. On being so informed by P. W. 4, they all went to the spot, saw the dead body of the deceased, and brought the accused near the temple. Thereafter as directed by P. W. 6 and the other panchayat members, P. W. 5 went to Hadagali and informed this fact to P. W. 2. P. W. 6 is the person who was informed by P. W. 4 while he was talking to P. W. 5 and he had gone to the spot along with others where he saw, the dead body of the deceased and also found the accused being detained by P. W. 3 along with the child. After the accused was brought to the temple, he made an extra judicial confession to P. W. 6 and others. P. W. 7 Chandrappa is the owner of the land where the dead body of the deceased was found to be lying. The situation of the land as spoken to by P. W. 7 is on the way leading to singatanur village. P. W. 7 Chandrappa is the owner of the land where the dead body of the deceased was found to be lying. The situation of the land as spoken to by P. W. 7 is on the way leading to singatanur village. P. W. 8 is the Manager of the lodge who speaks about the stay of the accused along with his wife and child on the night of 17-5-1990 and having vacated the room on the next day at about 6 a. m. in the morning and he also speaks to the fact about their going and taking dinner in the hotel of P. W. 9. P. W. 9 is the owner cum server of his hotel, and on that night, he had served food to the accused, when he had come to his hotel along with his wife and child to take meals. P. W. 10 is the brother of the deceased. He says that the deceased was not suffering from any disease or physical disorder and he also speaks about the harassment to the deceased by the accused by suspecting her fidility and also demanding the money from her. He further speaks to the fact of his having written a letter Ex. P. 6 to the accused, which was recovered from the person of the accused. P. W. 11 is a panch witness for the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased as per the Inquest report Ex. P. 7. He is also a panch for the spot panchanama Ex. P. 8. He also speaks to the presence of the injury over the neck of the deceased and also the presence of ligature material and the same being seized under a panchanama. P. W. 12 is a panch witness to the two panchanamas Exs. P. 9 and 10. But he has turned hostile to the prosecution. However, he speaks to the seizure of the ornaments of the deceased at the police station and also about the seizure of the register Ex. P. 4 at the lodge. Since P. W. 12 denied the presence of the accused at that time, he had been treated as hostile to the prosecution. P. W. 13 is the doctor who conducted the P. M. examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18-5-1990 before 4-45 and 6 p. m. as per the P. M. report Ex. Since P. W. 12 denied the presence of the accused at that time, he had been treated as hostile to the prosecution. P. W. 13 is the doctor who conducted the P. M. examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18-5-1990 before 4-45 and 6 p. m. as per the P. M. report Ex. P. 11 and has also furnished the opinion with regard to the strings M. Os. 5 and 6. P. W. 14 is the Investigation Officer who took up further investigation of the case from the P. S. I. on 25-5-1990 and recorded the statement of P. W. 6. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused into the Court. P. W. 15 is the village accountant of Hadagali village, who has issued the ROR in respect of the land of P. W. 7 as per Ex. P. 3. He also speaks to the location of the land as being situated on the way leading to Singatanur village located on the other side of the river Thungabhadra. P. W. 16 is the H. C. , who had accompanied the P. S. I. to the spot and after the inquest proceedings were held, taken the dead body for its P. M. examination to the doctor and after the P. M. examination was over, he handed over the articles that were found on the dead body of the deceased to the P. S. I. and had also arranged for the burial of the deceased, as unclaimed body. P. W. 17 is the carrier of the FIR. He was entrusted with the FIR at about 12 noon on 18-5-1990 and he delivered the same to the Magistrate at Hospet at about 12-30 midnight. P. W. 18 is a panch witness for Exs. P. 9, 10 and 12 and he has turned hostile to the prosecution, P. W. 19 is the P. S. I. who registered the case, held inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased, taken custody of the accused from the villagers, recorded the statements of P. Ws. 3 to 5 during the inquest proceedings and also conducted a personal search of the accused and recovered the letter Ex. P. 6 and other articles from the person. He had also visited the lodge along with the accused and seized the registers. This is the summary of the prosecution case. 3 to 5 during the inquest proceedings and also conducted a personal search of the accused and recovered the letter Ex. P. 6 and other articles from the person. He had also visited the lodge along with the accused and seized the registers. This is the summary of the prosecution case. ( 3 ) THE accused when examined under S. 313, Cr. P. C. denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the case and he had further examined two witnesses on his side as D. Ws. 1 and 2. D. W. 1 who is admittedly a resident of Sirimanahalli situated at a distance of about 5 kms. from the residence of the accused in Davangere, has stated that the accused was looking after his wife namely the deceased affectionately. Likewise D. W. 2 who has been residing at a distance of about 5 kms. from the house of the accused has stated that both the accused and his wife were living cordially with each other in their house. These two witnesses D. Ws. 1 and 2 had been examined by the defence only to speak to the fact that the accused and the deceased were living cordially with each other. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that D. W. 1 would admit the visits of the brothers of the deceased to the house of the accused at Davangere. In this context, the evidence of P. W. 10, the brother of the deceased with regard to the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased would assume some importance. ( 4 ) THE trial Court on consideration of the entire evidence placed on record, has found the accused guilty of the offence under S. 302, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The appellant has however been acquitted of the charge under S. 201, IPC. In so far as the two witnesses examined by the defence as D. Ws. 1 and 2, are concerned, the Court below has held that they were not the immediate neighbours of the accused and therefore they had no knowledge about the nature of relationship between the accused and the deceased and hence from their evidence, it cannot be said that there were no differences at all between the accused and the deceased. 1 and 2, are concerned, the Court below has held that they were not the immediate neighbours of the accused and therefore they had no knowledge about the nature of relationship between the accused and the deceased and hence from their evidence, it cannot be said that there were no differences at all between the accused and the deceased. It is against this judgment and order of conviction recorded by the Court below, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended before us that the extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and it is not at all safe to convict the accused on the basis of such a weak type of evidence in the absence of any corroboration from the other circumstances. She also contended that the extra judicial confession made before the strangers, cannot be accepted. While elaborating this submission, she contended that there was absolutely no need for the accused to have made extra judicial confession before P. Ws. 3, 4 and others. She therefore contended that the trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused on the sole evidence of extra judicial confession made by the accused before P. Ws. 3, 4 and others. She further contended that there was absolutely no motive for the accused to commit the murder of his wife. In this regard, she drew our attention to the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2. She contended that the evidence of these two witnesses D. Ws. 1 and 2 would clearly indicate that the accused had lot of love and affection for his wife and that being so there was absolutely no reason for the accused to commit the murder of his wife by taking her to such a lonely place. She also contended that there is no reason to discard the evidence of these two witnesses D. Ws. 1 and 2 and if their evidence is believed, it would clearly indicate that there was absolutely no motive for the accused to commit the murder of his wife. The learned counsel for the appellant has therefore contended that the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court against the accused cannot be sustained in law and it is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant has therefore contended that the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court against the accused cannot be sustained in law and it is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) AS against this the learned State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent-State has contended that the materials placed on record would clearly indicate that the accused was seen in the company of the deceased just prior to the incident and also a day prior to the incident when he had stayed in the lodge and there is absolutely no explanation on the part of the accused as to how and when he parted with the company of the deceased. He therefore contended that on the facts and the materials placed on record and in the absence of any explanation on the part of the accused, the only irresistable conclusion is that it is the accused who had done the deceased to death. He also contended that the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 has been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court and the materials placed on record would clearly indicate that there were some differences between the accused and the deceased, which constituted a motive for the accused to commit the crime. He therefore contended that the findings recorded by the trial Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence under S. 302, IPC are sound and proper and warrants no interference in the appeal. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the submission on both sides at a considerable length and having carefully perused the case records, the only question that would arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of conviction made by the trial Court against the accused can be sustained in law. ( 8 ) THE prosecution case entirely rested on the circumstantial evidence. Apart from the various circumstances pressed into service by the prosecution, which were held proved by the Court below, it mainly relied upon the vital circumstances namely that P. Ws. ( 8 ) THE prosecution case entirely rested on the circumstantial evidence. Apart from the various circumstances pressed into service by the prosecution, which were held proved by the Court below, it mainly relied upon the vital circumstances namely that P. Ws. 3 and 4 saw the deceased alive at about 8-30 a. m. in the company of the accused when they were quarreling with each other orally and within a short while thereafter, they saw this accused returning alone along with his child and on being enquired by them about the lady accompanying him, they were told by the accused that he had killed her. Thereafter they both went to the spot which was situated in the land of one Chandrappa P. W. 7 and saw the dead body of the deceased lady lying behind a bush in the land and found to have been strangulated by means of a string used for tying the pettycoat by the women folk. The accused made an extra judicial confession before P. Ws. 3 and 4. Then while the accused was being detained by P. W. 3 nearabout the place of incident, his companion P. W. 4 went to the village and informed the said fact to P. Ws. 5 and 6 and brought them to the spot. They also saw the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter they brought the accused to the temple and they detained him at the temple till the arrival of the police. The accused made an extra judicial confession before them also. P. W. 5 then went and brought Dalapathi of Navali Village P. W. 2, who was then found at Huvina Hadagali at about 9-15 a. m. P. W. 2 also went with a few villagers to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased. He then came to the temple where the accused was detained. He also made enquiries with the accused, who admitted having killed his wife. Thus there was an extra judicial confession made by the accused before P. W. 2 also. Thereafter P. W. 2 went to Hadagali Police Station and lodged a complaint with the police as per Ex. P. 2 at about 11-30 a. m. on 18-5-1990. The P. S. I. , P. W. 19 registered the case and came to the temple and took custody of the accused. Thereafter P. W. 2 went to Hadagali Police Station and lodged a complaint with the police as per Ex. P. 2 at about 11-30 a. m. on 18-5-1990. The P. S. I. , P. W. 19 registered the case and came to the temple and took custody of the accused. According to the P. S. I. , P. W. 19 the accused also pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying. He held inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution were that the accused had visited the lodge/of which P. W. 8 was the manager, on the night of 17-5-1990 at about 7 or 7-30 p. m. and stayed in the said lodge during the night along with his wife and child and had their dinner at the hotel of P. W. 9 on that relevant night and on that next day morning at about 6 a. m. accused vacated the room in the said lodge. Thus the accused and the deceased had stayed together during the night of 17-5-1990 along with their child at the above said lodge and on the next day morning, they had left the lodge. The fact that the deceased had died homicidal death is amply proved from the materials placed on record. The medical evidence placed on record would show that there was a ligature mark around the neck, encircling the neck just below the mandible and it was a complete circle. It was found that anteriorly there were two lines of mark with a gap of 2" between each and there were contusions between the two marks. On dissection it was found that the hyoid bone was intact but the thyroid cartilage was found to be fractured. The cause of death according to the doctor P. W. 13 was due to shock and due to vaso-vagal inhibition as a result of strangulation and the ligature material like the strings M. Os. 5 and 6 can cause such ligature mark, which was found around the neck of the deceased. Further the ligature marks that were found around the neck of the dead body of the deceased were found to be antemortem in nature. According to the doctor P. W. 13 there cannot be any suicidal strangulation. 5 and 6 can cause such ligature mark, which was found around the neck of the deceased. Further the ligature marks that were found around the neck of the dead body of the deceased were found to be antemortem in nature. According to the doctor P. W. 13 there cannot be any suicidal strangulation. In view of the above medical evidence on record coupled with the other circumstances appearing in the case, it can safely be concluded that the deceased Smt. Sunanda died a homicidal death. ( 9 ) P. WS. 3 and 4, are both shepherds and they were found grazing their sheep near about the land of one Chandrappa P. W. 7 situated on the way leading to Singatanur village. It was also a way leading to the temple. Both P. Ws. 3 and 4 were residents of Navali village and they were taking their sheep for the purpose of grazing round about the area of their village. There is nothing unusual about them. At that time while they were grazing the sheep nearabout the land of P. W. 7, they saw the accused going along with his wife and child on the road leading to a temple of their village. At that time, except P. Ws. 3 and 4, the accused, the deceased and their child no other person was found in the near vicinity. The accused and the deceased were found quarreling orally with each other. Naturally that should have attracted the attention of P. Ws. 3 and 4. Within a short while thereafter, they saw the accused returning back along with the child only and on seeing the same, they asked the accused about the lady accompanying him and they were told by the accused that he had killed her in the nearby land as she was not found to be faithful to him. On being so told by the accused, they both went and saw the dead body of the deceased which was lying behind a bush and the deceased was found to have been strangulated by means of a string. Thereafter while one of them namely P. W. 3 detained the accused at the spot, the other companion P. W. 4 went and brought P. W. 6 and others to the spot. They are both independent witnesses and they have absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the accused. Thereafter while one of them namely P. W. 3 detained the accused at the spot, the other companion P. W. 4 went and brought P. W. 6 and others to the spot. They are both independent witnesses and they have absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the accused. We therefore find no reason to discard their evidence. Their evidence would further stand corroborated from the evidence of P. Ws. 5, 6 and also P. W. 2, who had lodged a complaint as per Ex. P. 2 with the police. It has to be pointed out that the accused who was detained by P. W. 3 had been later brought by P. W. 6 and others to the temple and they had detained him at the temple till the arrival of the police. After the P. S. I. , P. W. 19 came to the spot, the accused was handed over to his custody and it is stated that the accused had also pointed out the dead body to the P. S. I. , P. W. 19. the accused made extra judicial confession before P. Ws. 3 and 4 as well as before P. Ws. 5 and 6 and also before P. W. 2, In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the evidence of these witnesses is reliable and consistant especially when the accused has been caught at the spot and after being detained for some time, had been handed over to the police. Their evidence is mutually corroborative and it gets further corroborated by the fact that the accused was immediately apprehended and handed over to the police. If a Criminal Court is to view the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses as unnatural, it would be easy to brush it aside with a stereo-type reasoning that these persons could not have been present there especially P. Ws. 3 and 4 and that further accused taking the deceased with a sinister design would normally take the precaution not to be seen by any person on the way. But in this case it is to be remembered that the accused was caught immediately after the incident and was handed over to the concerned P. S. I. Under the circumstances, therefore, their evidence cannot be brushed aside as a doubtful conduct. P. Ws. But in this case it is to be remembered that the accused was caught immediately after the incident and was handed over to the concerned P. S. I. Under the circumstances, therefore, their evidence cannot be brushed aside as a doubtful conduct. P. Ws. 3 and 4 being shepherds, it is quite natural to find them grazing the sheep on the outskirts of the village. If at that time they saw the accused in the company of the deceased going along with the child, quarreling with each other, there is nothing unnatural or unusual for them to see the deceased in the company of the accused. We therefore find no reason to discard their evidence. We are not told of any reason whatsoever for these witnesses to bother themselves to concoct such a story. There is nothing inherent, incredibility in the evidence of these two witnesses. In this connection a reference may be made to a decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 107 : (1998 Cri LJ 89 ). ( 10 ) THEN we have the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9. P. W. 8 is the Manager of the lodge. He has stated that the accused had come to their lodge along with one lady and child. On enquiry with the accused, he was told that the said lady is his wife and the child is his son. The accused had come to the lodge requesting for a room and accordingly a room had been allotted to him and an entry to that effect had also been made in the concerned register which is as per Ex. P. 4. As per the relevant entry Ex. P. 4, the accused had visited the lodge at about 7-30 p. m. on 17-5-1990 and room No. 3 was allotted to him and he had paid an advance of Rs. 50/ -. on the next day morning, the accused vacated the room at about 6 a. m. He has further stated that one Prakash was running a boarding on the ground floor of their lodge and on that night the accused had been to the said hotel and took their meals. According to him the room was allott-ed to the accused bearing No. 3 which was on the same floor where his counter was situated and the distance between that room and the counter is about 30 feet. According to him the room was allott-ed to the accused bearing No. 3 which was on the same floor where his counter was situated and the distance between that room and the counter is about 30 feet. The contents of the entry made at Ex. P. 4 (a) would reveal that the room had been obtained by the accused in his own name but showing a different place of his residence. The evidence of P. W. 8 stands corroborated from the contemporaneous entry made in the register Ex. P. 4. ( 11 ) P. W. 9 was running a hotel near the said lodge. He was the owner cum server in the said lodge. He has stated that at about 9 or 9-30 p. m. the accused along with one lady and child had come to his hotel for taking food from the Vijaya Lodge and after taking the food they went to their room. It is only in the cross-examination it is brought out that he is the owner cum server of his hotel. Thus he had occasion to see and remember the faces of the accused and his companion. ( 12 ) IT has to be pointed out that the accused had stayed with his wife and child on the previous night in the said lodge and dined in the said hotel and on the very next day morning at about 8-30 a. m. the incident in question had occurred. It has to be stated that on hearing about any shocking incident, a human mind would have tendency to recollect any previous event which could have had connection with the incident. If as a matter of fact, these two witnesses had occasion to see the deceased lady in the company of the accused on the previous night only of the gruesome episode, there is nothing improbable in those two witnesses remembering the person who was seen in the company of the deceased woman. Further as we have already stated the evidence of P. W. 8 gets corroboration from the contemporaneous entries made in the hotel register Ex. P. 4. ( 13 ) IT is nodoubt true that the circumstances with regard to the extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence, but when once it is found to be reliable and trust worthy, the conviction can be based on such evidence. P. 4. ( 13 ) IT is nodoubt true that the circumstances with regard to the extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence, but when once it is found to be reliable and trust worthy, the conviction can be based on such evidence. It is equally true that P. Ws. 3 and 4 were strangers to the accused. But it has to be remembered that the accused was immediately confronted with them and he had no other alternative except to admit the guilt before the said persons. The circumstances under which he had admitted the guilt before P. Ws. 3 and 4 would lend assurance to the fact that he had made an extra judicial confession before P. Ws. 3 and 4. The said circumstance is amply corroborated from the other circumstances appearing in the case. ( 14 ) THUS these circumstances in our considered view unmistakeably point out to the guilt of the appellant. The defence version in our view is totally false, unreliable besides being highly interested. ( 15 ) IT is true in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive is one of the circumstances which assumes importace, but it cannot be said that in the absence thereof, other proved circumstances although complete, the chain would be of no consequence. However, in this case, the evidence on record shows that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. ( 16 ) IN a case of this nature, the conduct of the accused is also important. When once it is established that the accused was with his wife at or about the place of occurrence and when there is no explanation as to how and when he parted with her company, then it lends assurance to the prosecution case. When the accused had even denied his apprehension near about the scene of incident by P. Ws. 3 and 4 and his being detained at that time till the arrival of the police, by the villagers and also his stay on the previous night in the above said lodge, which are proved from the materials placed on record, such a denial in the context is sufficient to provide the missing link. 3 and 4 and his being detained at that time till the arrival of the police, by the villagers and also his stay on the previous night in the above said lodge, which are proved from the materials placed on record, such a denial in the context is sufficient to provide the missing link. ( 17 ) THE evidence of the above witnesses in our view fully incriminates the appellant with the crime and hence we see no ground to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the trial Court. ( 18 ) WE find no merit in any of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 19 ) IN the result, therefore, this criminal appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed, affirming the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the trial Court. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .